David41283

For interest here is a comparison photo: From left to right. 1. DG coupling (an early one with a wonky wire loop!) 2. MBD latch end 3. MBD loop end. 4. B&B coupling. In this photo the B&B has an unfair advantage, as it is pre-coloured, but I do feel it looks as discreet as the DG, the MBD loop is a bit bigger than both. Overall the DG is the simplest to put together and I think the most pragmatic and forgiving in use. I can see why it seems to be the most popular as their simplicity means there is scope for flexibility. I guess this is "horses for courses" to a certain degree. Each type has it's supporters and detractors, each design has it's strengths and weaknesses. If I had any knowledge of CAD or product design I would be taking the best features of each and designing something to be mass-manufactured in plastic (perhaps with metal loop and latch) with a variety of NEM fittings.

You read my mind - I have had a go at a few hybrids in pursuit of my ideal coupling! None quite fit however, and this would double the cost per coupling. I haven't given up on the BB's, some of their features I prefer to the other designs. I've made 5 or 6 now and I think they're getting more consistent. That said I find they require the most precision in terms of height and uniformity in order to work when compared to the DG and MBD which are a bit more forgiving.

Just to complete the experiment, today I received a set of BB couplings, a 3rd different take on the same principle. I really like the design of the BBs - there are some strong points - they come ready blackened, there are separate pivots for the loop and latch, and I much prefer the practice of wrapping a small amount of magnetic soft iron wire around the foot of an etched dropper. However I feel they are somewhat let down by the lack of half-etched fold lines. On something so small it is very hard to make the couplings exactly the same when you are bending the metal without an etched fold. I have been using a proper "hold and fold" tool for these, and even then it is difficult to get sharp bends in the same place each time. I have made up a few and attached them to some old peco tanks. My first few tests seem to find that the loops appear to clash more than the other two types. I will continue to adjust and test.

Hi Keith, Those photos are super, thank you. Can I ask, I know that most only fit a latch (no loop) to locos, but on some of your photos of wagons it appears there is no latch, just a loop. Is this done on purpose or are the photos just mid-way through installation? This would certainly avoid the issue I am finding with the latch feet interfering with the loop join. I also note that you aren't soldering together the two ends of the loop - phew! I was really struggling with this, and to be honest, I couldn't imagine a scenario in which the forces involved were great enough to necessitate this anyway. One thing I am really struggling with, is soldering the two different wires together to make the dropper. Is there a trick I'm missing here? Thanks David

Hi Keith, I saw a photo online somewhere of a modified DG with a piece of brass rod soldered across the base plate at right angles in order to clip into an NEM pocket. How do you get them to fit into the pockets? Thanks David

Hi Simon, I've seen Polpendra at an exhibition, and they do look very good. When you refer to soldering the wire, do you solder to the extra bit of etch on the loop (the rectangular tab which the instructions tell you to cut off.)? Thanks David

Hi Robert, I am vaguely aware of the BB coupling, but obtaining them seems to be the issue. The only source I can find online seems to be the original designer, and the only method of reaching him is via a postal address, dated 3 years ago. Given the events of the last year or so, it feels a little strange sending a speculative letter to someone's home address from an obscure internet link, several years out of date. Also, if he is OK, and still trading and I receive a positive reply and a price list, I'm not sure I even possess a chequebook anymore! Unless anyone has any alternative contact details or suppliers of BB couplings.

This week I have been experimenting with alternative couplings. I ordered a set each of DGs and MBDs. Having searched the internet I also found Electra Couplings and Lin-Cups both of which are home made from wire. I discounted Sprat and Winkle and MBMs as these don't offer a delayed function. Information seems patchy and thinly spread around the internet. My thoughts: DG couplings Appear finer and less obtrusive than MBDs. Easier to fold up the etch than the MBDs. Making the wire loop is actually easier than I had been led to believe. However it is really annoying when you un-bend your perfect loop in order to fit it to the coupler and you can't ever get it back in shape quite as well again. I am finding that the tiny feet of the latch are in extremely close proximity to the join of the loop and in some cases interfere causing either the loop or the latch to stick. I really wanted to like these, as the option of fitting just the latch (no loop) to locos is very appealing, but I am finding them harder to make work consistently. MBD couplings MBD couplings are one-ended. i.e. you fit a loop to one end of each vehicle and a latch to the other, which means locos have to be treated the same way. Trickier than the DG to fold up. The double fold on the buffing plate is a particular pain. The etched loop is far more visible than the wire loop of the DG, but is easier to fit as a result. I find an MDB has to be fitted slightly further forward than a DG which makes it a little more unsightly. I am not 100% happy with the interference fit of the wire to the loop. I am looking to find a way to solder this joint next time. So far I have a rake of 3 wagons with working MBDs, which demonstrate the delayed uncoupling beautifully. I have not consistently managed to get the DGs working as well yet. I have found the MBDs considerably easier to set up, but I don't like the one-ended design, or the overall look. I am going to persevere with my trial set of DGs a little longer. So far, I am leaning far more towards sticking with the Dapol couplings and making the best of them. The benefits I've seen from these systems so far, don't make me want to begin a mass conversion just yet!

Yes - this is exactly what I have found too. I agree again - this is what I do too. I have also tried cutting them into thirds, but this is too small to activate both couplings at once.

My small magnets arrived this morning, so I tried a few tests. This was my first option. 4 x 3mm magnets between the sleeper ends. This did absolutely nothing. It wouldn't even make the coupler arms twitch, and i tried multiple items of rolling stock. So I doubled up the magnets and turned the poles in towards the track. This achieved an odd mix of either doing nothing, or pulling the whole wagon off the track. It did get a couple of long wheel-base vehicles to perform the delayed action, but certainly no more frequently than the "official" Dapol magnets. After trying a few combinations, I concluded that the best thing for the job is the proper Dapol magnets. My experience with these so far is that the basic uncoupling function is pretty faultless, but I cannot rely on the delayed option. I wonder if a 00 scale Kadee magnet buried beneath the track may be a good option, but this is impossible to retro-fit. I am still thinking of adding some more magnets to the layout, but I have also ordered a pack of DG couplings to see how I get on with them before I make any changes.

Thank you - that's exactly the sort of information I was after. I will ignore the PL-25 for now. I have read Missy's Highclere blog - inspirational stuff, but I fear she is a far better engineer than I will ever be! Thanks David

I've been reading this thread as I have a pack of DG couplings on the way for me to try out. It appears that the "official" PK electromagnet is sold out. Looking at the Gaugemaster EM1 the instructions suggest it is suitable for DG couplings, but it seems expensive at £11 each. Has anyone tried the Peco PL-25 with DG/BB/MBD? Thanks David

Thank you, that's really helpful. So it looks like no class 29's were fitted with the mini-snowploughs. There are loads of photos of cl 29's on the WHL, all of which would bear this out too.

I have seen plenty of photos of these locos with mini-snowploughs in their cl 21 guise, but I cannot find any photos of post re-build class 29's with mini-snowploughs. Does anyone know if any class 29's were fitted with such for work on the WHL? Thanks

I am thinking of adding a few more uncoupling magnets to Invernevis in order to have a greater degree of hands-free operation. I had more-or-less hands-free shunting on Poldeen using the Dapol system which worked really well, but I have never really managed to get the "delayed coupling" aspect to work properly. I set up a test track with some spare flex-track and a magnet. To push the uncoupled vehicles while remaining uncoupled the knuckle has to open as wide as possible, and the coupling itself needs to deflect to the side in order for the couplings to mesh without recoupling, like this: However, the reality is that more often than not this happens: The couplings just don't move out far enough to allow the loco to push stock away from the magnet without re-engaging again. Through a few experiments I found that very few items of rolling stock have enough play in the coupling mount to permit the degree of deflection necessary for the delayed uncoupling to work, and where there is a degree of swing in the coupling mount, the Dapol magnet is either not wide enough or not strong enough to pull it far enough away from the centre. I have ordered some small strong magnets to try locating them outside of the rails to see if this can pull the couplings further apart in order to enable them to work as intended.

I finished my timber loads for my OBAs. For a quick idea using cocktail sticks, I reckon these have turned out pretty well.

Regards the width of Invernevis station, The loch is more than 2" wide on the right, and there is more than 1" space behind the station wall on the left. The whole thing is only 12" wide so the station area comfortably fits in 9" width, while appearing surprisingly spacious.

Here is an aerial view of the "lockdown train set": It is only 2ft x 3ft, there are no electrics to speak of and the points are manual. I built it purely as I wanted to build something over the summer and I thought it may be fun to build something like a traditional train set, but trying to make it a bit more interesting. I scratch built the lower goods shed and the fuelling point, everything else is kit-bashed from things I already had in the cupboard. However, not having properly thought things through, much of my stock is set up for Invernevis and has close coupling with knuckle couplers, which really don't like settrack points.

During the first lockdown, I built a very small layout, all basic set track. This now means I've got a quick and easy test track to play with when we can't leave the house. I have quite a lot of stock which rarely gets used on Invernevis, so this seemed like a good opportunity to give it all a run and hopefully get some more trains into a condition where they can be used more frequently on the layout. My new Clayton had a good run-in. I added some of the most visible bufferbeam pipes. Unfortunately with the unusual coupling mount, I just couldn't figure out a way to attach the mini-ploughs and the coupler. I thought about sticking these two EWS Seacows on eBay, they were some of the first items I attempted to weather when I started out in n gauge 10 years ago. With the imminent arrival of the EFE mermaids and sharks I think I will respray them into very rusty olive green in the coming weeks. I just can't get these kit-built OTAs to run well enough, and with the plaster loads they weigh a ton. They look great, but remain in storage. I do want to run a timber train, so I made some loads for my rake of OBAs which is probably more appropriate for the late 70's/early 80's anyway. Very simple, just chopped up cocktail sticks on a plastic base, but once painted to look like pine trunks, I reckon they will look the part. This Tamper seems to have real issues, the drive shaft just isn't moving the wheels. It remains in the reserves box waiting further investigation. I finally got round to sticking some cars down onto one of my Motorail flats. They just need a waft of matt varnish to take the shine off now. The Eastfield celebrity 26's arrived via eBay a couple of years ago, only a day or so before an exhibition, so I weathered them in a bit of a rush. I was pleasantly surprised today that I actually didn't do too bad a job. They had a good run as they're relatively lightly used. It all ended up a bit crowded with stock during my testing session! A useful few hours. David

My formations are broadly prototypical of interesting trains from across the WHL and the far north lines. I go for trains which look right for Scotland around 1980ish, but it's pretty broad. My usual set up is 4 prototypical rakes of 3 coaches, with close couplings in the middle and magnetic couplings only on the outer ends. All the coaches have been renumbered using a 1980 coaching stock pocket book from ebay. I then have various individual NPCC, vans and additional coaches to add or remove to/from these rakes in the station. I would also have a mixed freight - very cliche scottish layout - timber, vans, grain, fuel and a train of parcels vans to fill my 6 fiddle yard roads. The freight and parcels trains then rotate with the vehicles added to the passenger trains which adds interest. There a plenty of photos of WHL trains with vans, fuel tanks and even open wagons on the rear which I recreate. The longest train I run is 5 coaches, most are 4 which looks about right for many photos of the period. I use a class 20 as the station pilot, of which there is plenty of photographic evidence. So overall, I feel my formations are a fairly good representation of the trains of the era, without being completely accurate.

I guess this is really subjective, but it keeps me entertained for a whole day at exhibitions, and it will hold the attention of my 9 year old for about an hour. I am not usually someone who enjoys operating a layout for its own sake, hence why the layout stays put away for so many months at a time, but rather I take enjoyment from recreating realistic formations and operations, but everyone is different. If you usually enjoy a really complex layout then you may find this limited, but for me this has the right balance of realism vs interest to keep me occupied. Having the 6 road fiddle yard is a huge help, as you can have plenty of trains ready to bring in. I also think it would be even better in 00 as your options for hands-free shunting are that much greater than in 2mm.

Intercity ScotRail 47 pauses by the signal box before backing down onto its train at Invernevis.

Hello everyone, Time to resurrect this thread. We've had the layout out over the last few days, the first time in a quite a few months. Everything worked nicely, although I suspect a spider has set up home in the station building. I have also been experimenting with the settings on my phone camera, and I think I managed some better photos as a result. Here are some pics from today. Class 27 drifts past the signal box as it approaches the station. After uncoupling the 27 pulls forward along the loch-side past the station building. The station pilot drops onto the back of the train to remove the fuel tank and to release the loco. Class 24/1 on a mixed train on the quayside. A full length view of the train. Class 37/4 awaits its departure time. And heads out of the station, heading for Glasgow. Class 26 waits for it's next duty in the loading dock. Intercity Scotrail 47 backs down onto it's train. Cheers David

The policeman who spoke to me was in plain clothes, he came over and flashed his ID/warrant card before asking why I was there. I assumed then that the group of similarly dressed blokes he was with (also speaking to spectators/passers by) were also plain clothes officers too.

Hi everyone, Please excuse the slight diversion. Living in Plymouth I popped out to see the "mega-flask move" leave the dockyard. It was an interesting experience. Hopefully I can answer some of the questions posed. I know the service was due as I follow WNXX (railway news feed). A few weeks ago there was a photo of the presumably empty KUAs being delivered to the dockyard, with the locos returning north the next day, leaving the KUAs in the dockyard for loading. Then 24 hours or so before the return trip photos were posted of the 3 locos and barrier coaches heading back down south, suggesting the trip was imminent. I checked Realtime Trains over the next day or so and the working appeared, leaving the Dockyard at 18.35. This seemed a really sensitive working, significantly more so than normal flask workings. The dockyard is huge in Plymouth and covers much of the city's western shore with the Tamar, it is adjacent to built up areas and public roads. You can view the junction of the dockyard branch from a main road overbridge close to Keyham station. I drove down and stood on this bridge with a couple of others. It was striking how much additional security was in place. Extra armed guards on the gates, police with dogs, plain clothes police etc.. I was approached and spoken to by a policeman, who was very friendly about the whole thing, but let me know they were speaking to everyone who appeared to be taking an interest. I presume there were three locos as I understand these workings need to be double headed, especially this one with the "national security" element, and there simply isn't a convenient run-round nearby - hence the third loco to draw the train back out of the dockyard and down to St Budeaux Junction for the reversal. It was an impressive train, made more so by the cover of darkness and security operation. As an aside - every Monday morning at 11.30am in Plymouth you can hear an air-raid siren ring out. This is the weekly test of the alarm they would sound should there be a "problem" with a nuclear sub at the dockyard. Cheers David